162 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



revert to pre-RuDOLPHi authors would result in overturniug "a good 

 part" of the current noraeuclature of parasites. 



Before discussing the propositioa, atteution may first be directed 

 to the fact that Looss himself disarms aud weakens bis argument 

 by warning bis readers tbat be is not in a position to judge the 

 broader questions of nomenclature. He says: 



"Es sei mir gestattet, diese Behauptung hier etwas näher zu begründen 

 und dabei zugleich auf einige weitere Punkte hinzuweisen, in denen eine 

 Aenderung oder wenigstens eine präcisere Fassung der bestehenden 

 Vorschriften wünschenswerth erscheint, wenigstens für die helniin- 

 thologische Wissenschaft. Dass auch auf andern Special- 

 gebieten der Zoologie ähnliche praktische Schwierig- 

 keiten sich einstellen, ist nicht unmöglich, doch habe 

 ich darüber kein Urtheil." 



Thus Looss admits from the start that he has given but super- 

 ficial attention to the principles and practices of zoological nomen- 

 clature in general — an admission on bis part which must naturally 

 make every reflecting author exceedingly cautious about adopting the 

 new nomenclatural proposition ; he admits that bis proposal is made 

 without reflecting upon its influence, if adopted, upon other groups of 

 animals; he admits that bis study of nomenclatural practices is con- 

 fined to oue small speciality which contains but a small perceutage 

 of the known genera and species of the world, and in which the 

 theory and precedents of a scientific system of nomenclature have re- 

 ceived but little attention. Let us be duly appreciative of 

 the importance and the frankness of this admission, 

 when judging Looss' nomenclatural propositions and rulings. 



Turning now to the arguments advanced in favor of his Sug- 

 gestion, it must be submitted in reply that they are not free from 

 criticism. 



To the Statement that Rudolphi is the Linnaeus of helmintho- 

 logy, it may be replied that with all due appreciation of the keen 

 seuse of Classification which the learned Austrian exhibited, he had 

 very competent predecessors in his nomenclatural and systematic work. 

 Gmelin (1790), Batsch(1786), and Zeder (1800 and 1803) pubHshed 

 synopses of the many parasitic worms kuow to them, and they applied 

 the Linnaean binomial nomenclature as consisteutly as do many hel- 

 minthologists to-day. Rudolphi's right to a higher consideration 

 than is granted to Gmelin, Batsch, and Zeder is not apparent. 

 Even GoEZE (1782) used a nomenclature which, though often difficult 



